Sri. Vasantha Poojary @ Kiran ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7433 Kant

                                1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                       BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

        CRIMINAL PETITION No.6969 OF 2020

BETWEEN

SRI. VASANTHA POOJARY
@ KIRAN KUMAR
S/O NARAYANA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.S6
DRUVA AROHAR APARTMENT
3RD CROSS, GIDDAPPA BLOCK
R.T. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032
                                      ... PETITIONER

[BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADV. FOR
    SRI. RAHUL RAI K., ADV.]

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R.T. NAGARA POLICE STATION
REP. BY IT STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001
                                     ... RESPONDENT

[BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP]

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
                                     2



PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.277/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF LEARNED 32 A.C.M.M., NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY.

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON                              FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE                                THE
FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

Heard Sri. Suyog Herele E., learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith the

learned HCGP appearing for State.

2. The petitioner calls in question the

proceedings in Crime No.277/2020 registered for

offences punishable under Section 78 (A)(vi) of the

Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that against the other accused in

C.C.No.2939/2020, the Court has quashed the

proceedings in two different petitions; one in

Crl.P.No.2929/2020 and connected cases disposed on

10.01.2022 and the other in Crl.P.No.567/2022 by its

order dated 31.01.2022 by following the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of BOARD OF CONTROL FOR

CRICKET VS CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR AND OTHERS1.

This Court by order dated 31.01.2022 passed in

Crl.P.No.567/2022, has held as follows:

"3. The case of the prosecution is

that one Prakasha, the Police Officer, City

Crime Branch (Special investigating),

Bengaluru registered a complaint on

06.11.2019 alleging that while

interrogating the cricket players, coaches,

and owners of franchises in connection

with Crime No.124/2019 came to know

about match fixing of the KPL cricket

matches held between 15th and 31st

August of the year 2019 and gave a

report about it to the Cubbon Park Police

Station. This resulted in the registering of

(2016) 8 SCC 535

the FIR against the petitioner for the above

said offences. After investigating the

matter, the police have filed a charge sheet

against the petitioner and other accused

persons, and the same is challenged by

the petitioner before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the

petitioner mainly argued on the point that

the co-accused persons had filed a criminal

petition before this Court, which came to be

allowed and the criminal proceedings

initiated against accused Nos.1 to 4 were

quashed by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this

Court in Crl.P.No.2929/2020 and

connected matters dated 10.01.2022. He

further contended that the allegations

against this petitioner and accused No.2

are one and the same and that he has

been granted relief of quashing the

criminal proceedings initiated against him.

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court

categorically held that the match fixing has

to be considered by only BCCI, who has

the authority to initiate disciplinary action,

but in this case, the Cricket Board has not

taken any action against the accused

persons. Therefore, an offence punishable

under Section 420 of IPC does not attract,

considering all the aspects, the Co-

Ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed

the criminal proceedings in the above said

petitions. He further contended that the

allegation against this petitioner in the

case is that he has instructed accused

No.1-Gautam, the Captain and Wicket

Keeper, to play slowly. In fact, he has

played a game and won the match against

the Shivamogga Lions team by super over,

and he has scored 57 runs in 52 balls and

the game was over by super over. In

another match with Mysore Warriors,

balls and remained not out in the match.

Ultimately, the opposite team won the

match by just one run. If at all, there was

any conspiracy instructed by this petitioner

to play slowly, the runs could have been

very less than the balls, but he has scored

well and won the matches. Such being the

case, a false case has been registered

against the petitioner only to harass the

petitioner. Hence, he prayed for quashing

the proceedings initiated against the

petitioner.

             5.            Learned         High        Court

Government           Pleader     objected         to     the

criminal petition.


      6.           Having      heard       the    learned

counsel for the petitioner-accused No.5 and

the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent-State and

perusing the records, the Co-Ordinate

Bench of this Court in the above said

petitions dated 10.01.2022 has held at

paragraphs-10, 11 and 12 which read as

under:

"10. However, the other common point urged by all the counsel is worth acceptance. According to the prosecution match fixing amounts to cheating and therefore the offence under section 420 IPC has been invoked in the charge sheet. For invoking offence under section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients to be present are deception, dishonest inducement of a person to deliver any property or to alter or destroy the whole or any

part of a valuable security. It was argued by Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa that the cricket lovers go to watch the match by buying tickets and thereby they are induced to part with their property i.e. their money. Of course money is a property, but his argument that they are induced to buy tickets cannot be accepted. They may have a feeling that they are going to witness a fair game being played, but, they buy the tickets voluntarily. So, question of inducement to buy ticket can be ruled out.

11. It is true that if a player indulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence. The match fixing may indicate dishonesty, indiscipline and mental corruption of a player and for this purpose the BCCI is the authority to initiate disciplinary action. If the bye-laws of the BCCI provide for initiation of disciplinary action against a player, such an action is permitted but, registration of an FIR on the ground that a crime punishable under section 420 IPC has been committed, is not permitted. Even if the entire charge sheet averments are taken to be true on their face value, they do not constitute an offence.

12. One of the petitioners is a bookie said to have involved in betting. Sri. Hashmath Pasha

has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket vs Cricket Association of Bihar and others [2016 (8) SCC 535] where it is observed that betting is to be legalized. It was argued by the respondent that betting amounts to gaming which is an offence under the Karnataka Police Act. If section 2(7) of Karnataka Police Act is seen, its explanation very clearly says that game of chance does not include any athletic game or sport. Cricket is a sport and therefore even if betting takes place, it cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of 'gaming' found in Karnataka Police Act."

7. Finally, the Co-Ordinate Bench

of this Court has considered the fact that

the allegations found in the charge sheet

do not constitute an offence under Section

420 of IPC and, therefore, an offence under

Section 120B cannot be invoked against

the accused persons. One of the accused

persons is an owner, and this petitioner is

also the owner of the team, namely Bellary

Tuskers. In view of the judgment already

delivered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court, the allegation against this petitioner

is also one and the same. Therefore, this

petitioner is also entitled to the same relief.

Hence, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has made out the case for

quashing the criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

All further proceedings in

C.C.No.2939/2020 arising out of the Crime

No.197/2019 registered by Cubbon Park

Police Station, Bengaluru on the file of the I

Additional Chief Metropolitan and

Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby

quashed."

4. In the light of the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET

(supra) and the order of this Court as extracted above,

the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii. Proceedings in Crime No.277/2020 on

the file of the XXXII A.C.M.M.,

Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City,

against the petitioner stands quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KG